Mediaboss Marketing

Democrats are going on the offensive on Russia.

The top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday ramped up pressure on the Trump administration to slap new sanctions on Russia, releasing a massive report written without GOP involvement that details President Vladimir Putins alleged electoral meddling around the world.

Story Continued Below

That came one day after another senior Democratic senator abruptly released the transcript of an interview with a key player in the investigation looking into any ties between President Donald Trump and Russia's interference.

And across the Capitol, a half-dozen House Democrats banded together to push Republicans for a more comprehensive response to Russian disruption of the 2016 election, warning that Moscow will again meddle with the democratic process.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Democrats, frustrated by conservative attempts to undercut the investigation into Trumps ties to Moscow and growing convinced that Republicans arent taking electoral security seriously, are increasingly tired of waiting on their colleagues in the majority to act and are taking their concerns public.

We must counter Russias well-established election interference playbook, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a floor speech billed as puncturing partisan efforts to deflect attention and distract from critical inquiries into Moscows attempts to upend the 2016 election.

Russia will hack. Russia will bully. Russia will propagandize, he said.

Sen. Ben Cardins staff on the Foreign Relations Committee extensively detailed that alleged behavior by Putins network in the report Wednesday, which does not address special counsel Robert Muellers probe but repeatedly slams Trump for a laggard response that it says puts U.S. security at risk.

President Trump is squandering an opportunity to lead Americas allies and partners to build a collective defense against the Kremlins global assault on democratic institutions and values, the report states. But it is not too late.

Among the report's two dozen-plus recommendations is a call for the Trump administration to implement a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill. Lawmakers in both parties raised alarms after the administration missed an October deadline to designate potential targets for new sanctions, and belated compliance came only after a nudge from Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

The next critical deadline is Jan. 29, the earliest date that companies could face penalties for engaging in "significant transactions" with targets in the Russian defense or intelligence sectors. The sanctions bill also asks the Treasury Department to give Congress a series of reports by the end of this month, including one on Russian oligarchs who could face future sanctions and their connections to Putin, and another on the effect of expanding sanctions to Moscow's sovereign debt.

One Democratic aide on the Foreign Relations Committee said the minority would be "waiting and seeing" how the administration treats the required Russian oligarch list as a test of its commitment to sanctions implementation.

"If theres, like, two names on it, then theyre probably not taking it very seriously," the aide told reporters.

Other Democratic proposals to safeguard against future electoral disruption by Putin include placing FBI investigators in embassies and disclosing intelligence about the Russian leaders personal corruption and wealth stored abroad.

Democratic staffers on the Foreign Relations panel were optimistic that the report would win some Republican buy-in after its Wednesday release, much as the package of Russia sanctions drew widespread GOP support even as Trump continued to publicly deny that Moscow intervened in the 2016 election.

A lot of Republicans have been publicly critical of how Trump has handled the Russia issue specifically, one aide told reporters.

Corker said Tuesday that he would "look at the whole" Russia report, adding that he and Cardin (D-Md.) "have a very good relationship. He knew it was probably not something that Id want to be a part of, but he made me aware of it."

A spokeswoman for Corker, a lead author of last year's Russia sanctions legislation, said in a statement that Corker "appreciates the fact that Senator Cardin previously notified him" of the Democratic report, which he received a copy of late Monday. "While we will review the report in its entirety, including the recommendations, no further full committee activity is planned at this time.

Republicans say they are working on election security ahead of the midterms, and the bipartisan leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee are expected to provide recommendations on the matter before the primary season begins.Eight House Republicans and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) already have signed on to legislation that would codify one recommendation in the Cardin report, which proposes that social media companies require disclosure of the funding sources behind political ads on their platforms to prevent Russian attempts at manipulation. Still, the prospects for movement on that measure appear grim at present given the scant number of GOP backers.

If Republicans did get on board with Cardin's report, that would mark a stark contrast with the partisan conflagration that erupted Tuesday on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Top Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California released the transcript of the panel's August interview with Glenn Simpson, whose company was behind an explosive dossier tying Trump to the Kremlin. A spokesman for the Judiciary panel's chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley (D-Iowa), slammed Feinstein's decision to unilaterally release the document, but she seemed unconcerned Tuesday.

"The only way to set the record straight is to make the transcript public," she said.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said the Senate Judiciary Committee's Russia investigation, "to be very blunt, has been painfully slow."

"If there is no price, it will be done with impunity again," he said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) expressed skepticism that Republican leaders would heed her call to ramp up the pace of investigative and oversight work against Russian meddling as the 2018 midterms approach.

"On a score of what to what?" she quipped to reporters.

"I have no doubt that if the Democrats were in power, we would have taken action to protect our electoral system," Pelosi said. "I have no doubt if the Democrats were in power, the Republicans would be urging that action, but thats not what theyre doing."

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the rest here:
Democrats punch back on Russia - POLITICO

The federal government barreled toward a partial shutdown Monday as the Democrats in Congress dug in their heels in a battle of political wills with President Trump and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill.

The Democrats are demanding relief from deportation for illegal immigrants who participated in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program as part of a deal to keep the lights on in Washington. Its risky; the party in the White House tends to win shutdown fights, as Republicans learned in 2013 and previously.

But the Democrats are confident. They are convinced the uproar over Trumps denigration of immigrants from Haiti and certain African nations by referring to them as coming from shithole countries has given them the upper hand in the debate.

The politics, especially right now, is more about why the shutdown is happening and, if there is a shutdown, it can easily be attributed to the unreasonable demands of a racist president, Ed Espinoza, a Democratic strategist in Austin, Texas, said.

The shutdown of 2013 essentially happened because Republicans could not keep Ted Cruz in line, he added. If theres a shutdown in 2018, it will be because Republicans cannot keep Donald Trump in line.

Republicans in the past 25 years have twice used their congressional majorities to shut down the government as a means to win concessions from a Democratic president. Twice the Republicans failed and folded after causing severe political damage to their partys brand, once in late 1995 versus President Bill Clinton, once in late 2013 versus President Barack Obama.

Democrats, under pressure from their base to secure legalization for so-called Dreamers, adults brought to the U.S. illegally as children by their parents, appear ready to gamble that walking away from a spending deal will pay off. Trump his demanded billions for border security, including a physical wall across the southern border, an ask especially opposed by liberals.

Sen. Tom Cotton, a top Trump ally, is daring Democrats to take the plunge. In a Sunday post on Twitter, the Arkansas Republican said a Democratic shutdown would improve chances of GOP pick-ups in Senate races in states Trump won in 2016.

So Democrats are now threatening to shut down the government if they dont get amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. Lets see how that works out for them, especially in places like West Virginia, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and Montana, he said.

Trump has added his own voice on Twitter. He is attempting to define the Democrats as inflexible and recalcitrant, putting politics over compromise.

In one of the presidents most recent posts, he went after Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., among his partys chief negotiators and who revealed that Trump used the term shithole in a private meeting in the White House.

Senator Dicky Durbin totally misrepresented what was said at the DACA meeting. Deals cant get made when there is no trust! Durbin blew DACA and is hurting our Military, Trump said.

Democrats dont have the votes to block a spending bill in the House. But in the Senate, where a 60-vote supermajority is required to approve appropriations, the Republicans are nine votes short, and thats if they are unanimous, which on fiscal issues is rare.

The issue is whether the voters will reward the Democrats if they use the power of the 49-seat Senate minority to block the majority party in Congress and the White House. In the past, when Republicans prosecuted a similar challenge, voters deemed them unreasonable.

I have yet to see a scenario in my entire life going back to [President Ronald] Reagan where a shutdown benefitted the Republicans politically, a GOP strategist said. Having said that, if it was ever clear that this is the doing of Democrats whose base wont let them work with the president, it is now.

If Republicans have a concern, it is that Trumps occasionally undisciplined, erratic communications style will allow the Democrats to dominate the debate. That, and the presidents low job approval ratings and a possible midterm backlash against the GOP, is keeping the Republicans on edge.

Republicans being Republicans, and with Trump's penchant for straying way off message, I can see them getting blamed as well, a Republican insider said. Voters don't understand the nuances of the whole 60-vote thing and it doesn't translate well into a short sound bite: If they are in charge of everything, they are responsible for it, right?

If Democratic insiders are worried, its about Trumps ability to amplify his message through conservative media.

Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House so the idea of blaming Democrats because Republicans cant get the job done is ridiculous, Democratic strategist Rodell Mollineau said. That wont stop Trump from making that case forcefully, and I suspect his base and allies in the conservative media will help to amplify the charge regardless of its veracity.

Read the original here:
Democrats confident they can win government shutdown fight

The spread of commercially available encryption products has made it harder for law enforcement officials to access to information that relates to criminal and national security investigations. In October, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that in an 11-month period, the FBI had been unable to extract data from more than 6,900 devices; that is over half of the devices it had attempted to unlock. Its a huge, huge problem, Wray said. One might think that a way around this problem is for the government to order the user to produce the password to the device. But such an order might face a big hurdle: the Fifth Amendment. A handful of cases have emerged in recent years on the applicability of the Fifth Amendment to demands for passwords to encrypted devices. The protections afforded by the amendment depend on, among other things, whether the password involves biometric verification via a unique physical feature, or the more typical string of characters (passcode). As we will see, the government has a bit more leeway under the Fifth Amendment to insist on the decryption of personal computing devices using biometric passwords thatas in the new iPhone Xare increasingly prevalent.

The Fifth Amendment

The Supreme Court recognizes the Fifth Amendment does not independently proscribe the compelled production of every sort of incriminating evidence, but applies only when the accused is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating. For information to be testimonial, the Supreme Court has said, an accused's communication must itself, explicitly or implicitly, relate a factual assertion or disclose information ... The expression of the contents of an individual's mind falls squarely within the protection of the Fifth Amendment.

The Fifth Amendment and Compelled Decryption: Biometric Verification vs. Passcodes

Biometric Verification

Courts are in relative accord that the Fifth Amendment doesnt protect against the production of physical features or acts. For example, the Fifth Amendment does not bar the compelled production of a persons voice, blood, handwriting or visage; although the features may be incriminating, they have no testimonial or communicative nature. Specifically, the court notes in United States v. Wade that[i]t is compulsion of the accused to exhibit his physical characteristics, not compulsion to disclose any knowledge he might have. Relying on these cases, the Circuit Court of Virginia Beach and Court of Appeals of Minnesota agreed that, as with any physical feature, the government can compel a suspect to produce a biometric password. Indeed, the court in State v. Diamond held, the task that Diamond was compelled to performto provide his fingerprintis no more testimonial than furnishing a blood sample, providing handwriting or voice exemplars, standing in a lineup, or wearing particular clothing.

Notably, a federal district court in northern Illinois recently found that the production of a biometric password wasnt analogous to production of physical evidence. The court, citing Riley v. California, reasoned, We do not believe that a simple analogy that equates the limited protection afforded a fingerprint used for identification purposes to forced fingerprinting to unlock an Apple electronic device that potentially contains some of the most intimate details of an individual's life (and potentially provides direct access to contraband) is supported by Fifth Amendment jurisprudence. Although its reasoning is grounded in Fourth Amendment privacy concerns, the court opened the door for Fifth Amendment protections of biometric passwords. While biometric passwords are touted as more convenient, secure measures of authentication, they are less so when the government requests the production thereof.

Passcodes

In contrast to a purely physical biometric password, the Fifth Amendment offers greater protections for passcodes. Though not itself an encryption case, Fisher v. United States is the cornerstone of our understanding on how the Fifth Amendment applies to compelled production of a password. In Fisher, the IRS ordered two taxpayers to produce incriminating documents. The defendants challenged the order, claiming that the content of the documents was incriminating and therefore protected by the Fifth Amendment. The court disagreed, holding the governments request for the documents, d[id] not compel oral testimony; nor would it ordinarily compel the taxpayer to restate, repeat, or affirm the truth of the contents of the documents sought. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment would not be violated by the fact alone that the papers, on their face, might incriminate the taxpayer, for the privilege protects a person only against being incriminated by his own compelled testimonial communications. However, the court was clear: while the content was itself not protected, the act of production could be testimonial irrespective of the content. The court reasoned, [t]he act of producing evidence in response to a subpoena nevertheless has communicative aspects of its own, wholly aside from the contents of the papers produced. Compliance with the subpoena tacitly concedes the existence of the papers demanded and their possession or control by the taxpayer. The court thus recognized that, in some instances, the Fifth Amendment protects the act of production.

Despite the act of production principle, the court in Fisher reasoned that [t]he existence and location of the papers are a foregone conclusion, and the taxpayer adds little or nothing to the sum total of the Government's information by conceding that he, in fact, has the papers. Under these circumstances ... no constitutional rights are touched. The question is not of testimony, but of surrender. This is referred to as the foregone conclusion exception to the act of production doctrine. In short, the Fifth Amendment is not implicated if the government knows of the existence, possession and authenticity of incriminating evidence, because the production thereof contains no testimonial import. Both the act of production and foregone conclusion doctrines are important to our understanding of how the Fifth Amendment protects against the compelled production of our passwords.

To date, only two federal appellate courts have applied the Fifth Amendment to compelled decryption in the context of passcodes. The Eleventh Circuit in In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena (U.S. v. Doe) held that the government cant compel a person to produce a password unless it knows the person possesses the password and knows, with reasonable particularity, that the device contains incriminating evidence. In the case, the government conducted an investigation of the defendant whom it suspected was sharing child pornography. Law enforcement executed a search warrant on his room and lawfully seized seven devices, all of which were encrypted. While the government knew the devices were the defendants, it didnt know whether any incriminating files were stored on the drives. Invoking the act of production doctrine, the court held that the decryption and production would be tantamount to testimony by Doe of his knowledge of the existence and location of potentially incriminating files; of his possession, control, and access to the encrypted portions of the drives; and of his capability to decrypt the files. Because the existence, possession and authenticity of the content on the device wasnt a foregone conclusion, the Fifth Amendment protected the act of producing a decrypted device. Many courts, both federal and state, agree with the Eleventh Circuits interpretation and application of the foregone conclusion doctrine. (For examples, see here, here and here.) It is worth noting that often times, as shown in U.S. v. Doe, the government employs the use of contempt orders to incentivize the compelled decryption of devices. But the efficacy of contempt sentences depends on whether the suspect is in custody and, when in custody, the suspects perceived consequences of conviction. First, if a suspect is dead, out of the country or otherwise absent, the threat of contempt is effectively useless as there is no one available to suffer the consequences of confinement. Second, even if a suspect may be held in contempt, the potential consequences of conviction may outweigh the consequences of a contempt sentence, thereby reducing the incentive to comply with an order to decrypt. For example, in U.S.v. Apple Macpro, the suspect has spent over two years in contemptand remains confined indefinitely, despite the fact that his conviction may not result in a life sentence. For this suspect and possibly many others, a contempt charge may be perceived as more lenient than the charge for the underlying crime.

A different interpretation has emerged in the Third Circuits decision in Apple Macpro. The court upheld a contempt order that was issued when the defendant refused to comply with a decryption order. The lower court applied the foregone conclusion doctrine using the Eleventh Circuits approach and ruled that because the government knew of incriminating content on the phone with reasonable particularity, there were no Fifth Amendment implications. However, while the appeals court approved, the judge also argued (in a footnote) that:

It is important to note that we are not concluding that the Governments knowledge of the content of the devices is necessarily the correct focus of the foregone conclusion inquiry in the context of a compelled decryption order. Instead, a very sound argument can be made that the foregone conclusion doctrine properly focuses on whether the Government already knows the testimony that is implicit in the act of production. In this case, the fact known to the government that is implicit in the act of providing the password for the devices is "I, John Doe, know the password for these devices." Based upon the testimony presented at the contempt proceeding, that fact is a foregone conclusion.

Put simply, the court reasons that all the government needs to know in order to compel the production of a password is simply that the password exists, that it is in the possession of the suspect and is authentic. According to the court, when a suspect produces a password, that act is simply a narrow testimonial assertion relating only to the password, not the incriminating content on the device. To date, the Florida Court of Appeals is the only court to adopt this line of reasoning. Orin Kerr, writing on the application of the foregone conclusion doctrine, has a similar interpretation of it: To know whether entering a password implies testimony that is a foregone conclusion, the relevant question should therefore be whether the government already knows that the suspect knows the password. Commenting on Apple Macpro, Kerr notes, Its dicta, but its very strong dicta. The issue will live for another day without a circuit split. But given that I think the footnote is correct, I hope it will be followed in future cases.

Questions to Consider Concerning Evolving Password-Based Technology

Electronic device users face important questions of how secure they want their devicesand from whom. If ones primary desire is to guard against the government, biometric passwordssuch as Apples TouchID or FaceIDmay not deliver the desired protection. Apple may have a solution to address the concerns illustrated above. iPhone users can use TouchID (a fingerprint password) and, when necessary, tap the power button five times to temporarily disable the setting and return to a traditional passcode. While this has been deemed the cop button, the feature is more likely to be used in cases of emergency.

Moreover, the discussion in this post raises potential issues with password managers such as Dashlane and LastPass. These applications use fingerprint ID technology to guard dozens, if not hundreds, of the users passwords. This presents two issues. First, biometric passwords are afforded fewer constitutional protections. Second, and more importantly, the application, if accessed by the government, would present law enforcement with an entire catalog of a users character-based passcodes. The act of producing the passcodes contained in the application wouldnt require the user to produce any testimonial information and thus the traditional Fifth Amendment implications concerning the compelled production of the stored passcodes would be limited. Under the principles discussed, these types of applications may provide users the least amount of protection against the government.

See the rest here:
The Fifth Amendment, Decryption and Biometric Passcodes ...

A raft of retirements, difficulty recruiting candidates and President Trumps continuing pattern of throwing his party off message have prompted new alarm among Republicans that they could be facing a Democratic electoral wave in November.

The concern has grown so acute that Trump received what one congressional aide described as a sobering slide presentation about the difficult midterm landscape at Camp David last weekend, leading the president to pledge a robust schedule of fundraising and campaign travel in the coming months, White House officials said.

But the trends have continued, and perhaps worsened, since that briefing, with two more prominent Republican House members announcing plans to retire from vulnerable seats and a would-be recruit begging off a Senate challenge to Democrat Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota despite pressure from Trump to run.

And by the end of the week, many Republicans were scrambling to distance themselves from the president after he spoke of shithole countries during an Oval Office meeting with lawmakers about immigration policy. Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah), a rising star in the party who faces a strong Democratic challenge this year, quickly denounced Trump for apparently denigrating Haiti, the birthplace of both her parents, during the Oval Office discussion.

The president must apologize to both the American people and the nations he so wantonly maligned, Love demanded creating a model, perhaps, for Republicans in competitive races to try to separate from Trump as a survival strategy.

As President Trump denied calling Haiti and African countries 'shithole countries,' Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) confirmed and condemned his language. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

In the Camp David presentation, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) described scenarios to the president ranging from a bloodbath where Republicans lost the House and lost it big, in the words of one official, to an outcome in which they keep control while losing some seats.

McCarthy outlined trends over recent decades for parties in power and spotlighted vulnerable Republican seats where Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Eight years ago, before the 2010 midterms swept the GOP to power, he had drafted a similar presentation with the opposite message for his party.

Republicans hold the advantage of a historically favorable electoral map, with more House seats than ever benefiting from Republican-friendly redistricting and a Senate landscape that puts 26 Democratic seats in play, including 10 states that Trump won in 2016, and only eight Republican seats.

But other indicators are clearly flashing GOP warning signs. Democrats have benefited from significant recruitment advantages there are at least a half dozen former Army Rangers and Navy SEALs running as Democrats this year, for example as Republicans struggle to convince incumbents to run for reelection.

At least 29 House seats held by Republicans will be open in November following announced retirements, a greater number for the majority party than in each of the past three midterm elections when control of Congress flipped.

The presidents own job approval, a traditional harbinger of his partys midterm performance, is at record lows as he approaches a year in office, according to Gallup. Polls asking which party Americans want to see control Congress in 2019 show a double-digit advantage for Democrats.

When the wave comes, its always underestimated in the polls, said a conservative political strategist who has met with GOP candidates. That is the reason that Republicans are ducking for cover.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) announced on Jan. 10 that he wont seek reelection in 2018, joining more than a dozen Republican members of Congress who will retire. (Sarah Parnass,Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

[Republicans in immigrant-rich Fla. scramble in wake of Trumps remarks]

Amid the onslaught, Republican strategists say they continue to pin their partys electoral hopes on the nations still-rising economic indicators, the potential effects of the recent tax-reform bill and Trumps ability to rally the conservative base.

The monthly metrics are bad, from the generic ballot to the Republican retirements to the number of Democratic recruits with money, said one Republican political consultant, who works with major conservative donors involved in the midterms and asked for anonymity to speak frankly. The big question is: Is everything different with Trump? Because the major metrics point to us losing at least one house of Congress.

That sliver of optimism extends to the top of the Republican leadership who are hopeful that Trumps disruptive effect on the political landscape can once again surprise the nation this fall.

Who knows what 2018 will be like? Nobody called 2016, right? said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), the second-ranking Republican in that chamber. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was going to get elected and that Chuck Schumer was going to be the majority leader. And none of that turned out to be true.

In private conversations, Trump has told advisers that he doesnt think the 2018 election has to be as bad as others are predicting. He has referenced the 2002 midterms, when George W. Bush and Republicans fared better after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, these people said.

But his ability to shape the midterm field has repeatedly been frustrated.

Trump worked hard to recruit two 2018 Senate candidates, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) and incumbent Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), both of whom announced in recent weeks that they would not run.

Those decisions strengthened the hopes of Heitkamp, who is running for reelection in a state that Trump won by 36 points in 2016, and provided an opportunity in Utah for a Trump antagonist, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, to launch a Senate bid of his own.

In other cases, Republicans have struggled to narrow their Senate fields, with big and sometimes-nasty primary fights shaping up in Indiana, Montana and Arizona. The recent announcement that former Phoenix-area sheriff Joe Arpaio would run for the Senate has raised some Republican concerns about holding onto the seat of retiring Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.).

Republican leaders feel better about Trumps ability to elevate Missouri candidate Josh Hawley, the state attorney general, who greeted the president on a recent visit. The White House is also pushing Florida Gov. Rick Scott to run against Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), although associates of Scott are of mixed opinions on the likelihood that he will do it. In a move White House aides described as unrelated, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recently granted Florida an exemption from the presidents new plan to open the nations coastlines to offshore drilling.

In Ohio, state Treasurer Josh Mandel also made a surprise announcement on Jan. 5 that he would abandon his own Senate campaign, which had broad national support, because of his wifes health. The White House political operation helped push Rep. James B. Renacci (R-Ohio), who had launched an outsider bid for governor, to instead challenge Sen. Sherrod Brown (D).

Trump continually reminds advisers that he remains popular in a number of states, including West Virginia, Montana and North Dakota, according to aides. But slow fundraising and anemic candidate recruitment have caused tensions between the White House and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, White House advisers said.

Still, two people with direct knowledge of that relationship said it has improved considerably in recent months. One person said there is an active effort to professionalize the operation, and coordination has improved.

A Republican familiar with NRSC operations said there was a noticeable fundraising uptick in December, when the GOP tax bill passed, which helped smooth out relations after a rough period that included a stinging special election defeat in Alabama that cost the party a Senate seat. These days, the Republican said, White House aides are in frequent contact with committee officials and the favorable map is a main driver of hope. An NRSC representative declined to comment.

White House officials said they expect a full plunge in upcoming weeks into a special House race in Pennsylvania, with trips from Trump, Vice President Pence and Cabinet members. The race has taken on a larger-than-life role in the White House because officials want to stem the tide of the losses they suffered last year in Virginia and Alabama.

White House officials also said they are interested in progress on infrastructure, which polls well across the country, particularly in swing districts. And they have begun exploring ways to inject wedge issues that could trouble Democrats in more conservative states. Those could include immigration votes, requirements for welfare, sanctuary-city reform and revisions to the guest-worker program.

Despite all that, political handicappers have gradually increased the odds that Democrats will retake the House, where they need to pick up 24 seats to do so. Democrats must net two seats to take control of the Senate, a harder task given the number of competitive states where Trump won election.

Among the recently announced Republican retirements are Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) and the surprise decision by Rep. Edward R. Royce (Calif.), who had previously told party leaders that he was committed to reelection. Both seats are now seen as potential Democratic pickups.

Hopes of recruiting other top-tier candidates have been frustrated. In Tennessee, Democrats recruited former governor Phil Bredesen to run for the Senate seat left open by the retirement of Sen. Bob Corker (R). But Republican efforts to recruit the current governor, Bill Haslam, fell short.

One prominent GOP donor said rumors that former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty would jump into the race are unfounded. Hes told me unequivocally hes not going to run for the Senate, the donor said. Pawlenty did not respond to a request for comment.

Republican strategists said they want to spend the next eight months talking about the economy.

I think its far less challenging now that weve got tax reform behind us, said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), the vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, echoing the hopeful line. The discussion we were having with candidates last year is weve really got to produce a result. Weve got to have something to run on.

But maintaining that message can be a challenge, as the president showed this week when his vulgar comments about some developing countries sparked international outrage.

Dave Hansen, a political adviser to Love, the Utah congresswoman, said such conflicts are unavoidable during the Trump presidency.

Its certainly not like running with Ronald Reagan, thats for sure, Hansen said. What a candidate has to do in a situation like this is, you cant be all in for the guy. Basically, you support him when you think hes right and oppose him when you think hes wrong.

Read more at PowerPost

Link:
New alarm among Republicans that Democrats could win big this ...

Congress

Ryan won GOP support for his short-term government funding bill after including provisions to target Obamacare.

By RACHAEL BADE, SARAH FERRIS and JENNIFER SCHOLTES

01/16/2018 10:05 PM EST

Updated 01/16/2018 11:01 PM EST

House Republicans on Tuesday night appeared to coalesce around a short-term funding bill to avert a government shutdown Friday even as conservatives threatened to oppose it and a bitter fight continued over the fate of more than 700,000 Dreamers.

Speaker Paul Ryan unveiled a plan at a House GOP Conference meeting to fund the government through Feb. 16, and numerous rank-and-file members quickly endorsed it despite their frustration with another short-term patch. To further sweeten the pot, the Wisconsin Republicans bill also includes a delay of several Obamacare taxes and a six-year extension of a popular health care program for children.

Story Continued Below

That combined with Minority Leader Nancy Pelosis (D-Calif.) threats to withhold Democratic votes to help pass the measure appeared to have won over key GOP skeptics.

Its a good strategic position because not only does it offer CHIP [funding] for six years but you also have a medical device tax delay as well as the Cadillac tax delay, said Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.), referring to some of the taxes that would be delayed. I think it puts Democrats in a very difficult position of having to vote against that in the House or in the Senate.

House GOP leaders will whip the bill Wednesday before a possible Thursday vote. If the funding measure passes the House, senior Republican sources in both chambers expect the measure to clear the Senate.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

House GOP leaders, however, still have some work to do: House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said many of his conservative members oppose the plan, dismissing the tax delays as a gimmick that wont necessarily help leaders find 218 votes for passage.

After the GOP Conference meeting, the House Freedom Caucus met and did not take a position on the stopgap bill. But Meadows expressed skepticism leadership's plan would pass in its current form with just Republican votes.

"Based on the number of 'no' and undecided votes, there is not enough votes for a Republican-only bill," he said.

Defense hawks, likewise, still arent thrilled. Rep. Austin Scott, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, stood up at the GOP Conference meeting to lecture leadership about how temporary continuing resolutions cripple the military.

In the end, the issue with national security is totally different than any of the other issues hanging out there, the Georgia Republican said in a brief interview before the meeting. We need to resolve this issue.

Democratic and Republican party leaders had hoped to reach a long-term budget agreement by Friday, when the government runs out of money. But Democrats have been loath to strike a deal to raise strict spending caps without a solution for young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors.

Those young adults, known as Dreamers, face deportation as early as March unless Congress codifies the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, which President Donald Trump is rescinding.

The stalemate has led to a series of stopgap funding bills, and this weeks will be the fourth since September.

Typically, appropriators abhor funding the government on a temporary basis, as it does not allow agencies to plan. But even some appropriators backed Ryans pitch Tuesday night.

It was pretty positive, even though some people are saying and rightfully so Man, here we go again! said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Theyre frustrated that were not getting the final deal done, but they understand the position were in, too. This is the best we can do right now. We dont have a deal on DACA.

Thats also the feeling of some top defense hawks in the House, who've used their votes to pressure leaders before.

We're going to have a CR, said Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas), who leads the appropriations subcommittee on defense. We're not going to shut down the government.

The House continuing resolution will include a two-year delay of the medical device tax, an unpopular Obamacare levy on equipment such as defibrillators and surgical tools. The tax has been delayed for two years but went back into effect on Jan. 1.

The bill also includes a delay of the so-called Cadillac tax on high-cost health insurance plans favored by labor unions, as well as on Obamacares health insurance tax, which is now going into effect after a one-year delay.

Newly elected House Budget Committee Chairman Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said the play call, as outlined by Ryan, is to dare Democrats to vote against all the extra policy items GOP leaders have thrown into the spending bill. The Childrens Health Insurance Program has long been a top priority for Democrats, for example, and many Democrats are also no fans of the Obamacare taxes that would be delayed.

Pelosi is expected to whip her caucus against helping Republicans get the votes needed for passage. But Republicans hope the CHIP attachment entices some House Democrats, particularly Congressional Black Caucus members, to peel off.

In December, when GOP leaders attached a short-term CHIP provision to the bill funding the government through Jan. 19, some Democrats privately complained about voting against the measure. Opposing a six-year funding measure which goes well beyond Decembers six-month patch would be even more difficult for these Democrats, Republicans believe.

Its a strategy that we think is a winning formula, Womack said. I mean, when you think about medical device tax, Cadillac tax, health insurance tax, voting against the CR, voting against funding our troops those are really difficult positions to maintain if youre the other side.

For some, however, thats not good enough.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a key player in the House Freedom Caucus, will oppose the leadership plan because, he said, it doesn't boost Pentagon spending sufficiently. He and Scott made a push during the conference meeting to include a full year of military funding, but that would almost certainly fail in the Senate without an equivalent increase in non-defense spending.

"I'm for funding the troops, holding the line on non-defense, and doing what we told the American people we were going to do," Jordan said on Tuesday while exiting the meeting. "This package is not consistent with what the election was about."

Freedom Caucus leaders plan to present GOP leaders with their own spending proposals as soon as Tuesday night or Wednesday morning. At least one of those ideas is a full-year of defense spending attached to a monthlong stopgap for domestic spending.

Still, some conservatives are already on board with the proposal. Rep. Mo Brooks, an Armed Services and Freedom Caucus member rarely aligned with leadership, backed Ryan's idea Tuesday night.

Were going to address the government staying open, the Alabama Republican said, expressing joy that the plan didnt include a DACA fix. There will be nothing that relates to illegal aliens in this issue. This is to fund the government. I think it will pass the House.

The response, indeed, had senior Republicans feeling more confident Tuesday night than they had in a while.

We dont need any Democrats in the House, boasted senior appropriator Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). And I dont think the Democrats in the Senate have the nerve to shut down the government.

John Bresnahan contributed to this report.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Go here to read the rest:
House Republicans coalesce behind plan to avert shutdown ...